Legal Schnauzer publisher Roger Shuler released after more than 5 months in Alabama jail

[Octafish]

This is the guy who stood up for Gov. Don Siegelman and against Karl Rove and the Alabama BFEE:



Roger Shuler, a veteran journalist and publisher of the Legal Schnauzer blog, was released yesterday afternoon from the Shelby County Jail, where he had spent more than five months from the fallout of a defamation lawsuit.

Shuler was released about 4:15 p.m. at the jail in Columbiana, Alabama, where he had been the only incarcerated journalist in the Western Hemisphere.

The arrest and incarceration has drawn national and international news coverage. Among the media outlets providing coverage are The New York Times, Al Jazeera, Huffington Post, Salon, Think Progress, WhoWhatWhy, FireDogLake, and more. Journalist/Attorney Andrew Kreig has provided ongoing in-depth coverage at his Washington-D.C.-based Justice-Integrity Project. Radio host Peter B. Collins has provided regular updates from his base in San Francisco.

Alan Colmes, of Fox News Radio, conducted a jailhouse interview with Shuler just last week, via telephone.

"I am grateful to have my freedom restored," Shuler says. "I also am grateful for the support of many readers, friends, and justice-focused citizens. This has been a traumatic experience for me and my wife, Carol, who has done a wonderful job of keeping our audience updated in my absence. Jail, of course, is not meant to be a pleasant experience, and I can provide first-hand testimony that it definitely is an unpleasant place to be, more so than probably many of us can imagine. It takes a tremendous physical, mental, and emotional toll."

SOURCE: http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/

Good to read you, Mr. Shuler! Hope you sue the pants off the traitors.

[questionseverything]

1. from the comments

legalschnauzer said...
Thank you, Kathryn. The grounds were that we had to remove certain posts from Legal Schnauzer, plus my YouTube and Twitter accounts. That's per an Oct. 21 court order, which came two days before my arrest and which I never had a chance to read until I was in jail and could not respond. We will be considering all of our options going forward, but the only way to get out of jail at this point was to follow that Oct. 21 order.
///////////////////////////

sounds like a first amendment violation...hopefully he can sue and win

[Octafish]

2. Alabama GOP didn't like the part about a rising ''star'' sleeping with a married woman.

In Jailhouse Interview, Alabama Blogger Says He Won’t Budge

By David J. Krajicek
WhoWhatWhy.com on Nov 25, 2013

Columbiana, Alabama—In his first interview since he was jailed last month for contempt of court, Alabama journalist Roger Shuler said he will stay behind bars indefinitely rather than comply with a judge’s “unlawful” order to scrub his blog of scandalous stories he posted about a powerful Alabama politician’s son.

“Free press, free speech, the First Amendment—none of this means anything to these people,” Shuler said. “I don’t see any reason I should remove the material. Is a person obliged to take an action based on a judge’s unlawful order?”

SNIP...

Affair and Abortion Alleged

[font color="purple"]The contempt citation that landed Shuler in jail without bail concerns his “Legal Schnauzer” blog posts earlier this year that alleged an affair between Lbierty Duke, a lobbyist in Alabama, and Robert (Rob) Riley, Jr., a Birmingham attorney and namesake of a two-term Republican governor of Alabama.

Shuler reported that Duke got pregnant, and “Republican insiders” paid her as much as $300,000 to have an abortion and to “stay quiet on the subject.” Both Riley and Duke were married to other people at the time. They denied the affair and filed a defamation lawsuit against Shuler.

The stakes are high for Rob Riley, whose name has been floated as a likely candidate for a soon-to-be-vacant U.S. congressional seat in the Birmingham area. [/font color]

Shuler said he stands by his reporting, with sources that “go right up to the Riley family.”

CONTINUED...

http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/11/25/in-jailhouse-interview-alabama-blogger-says-he-wont-budge/

Thank you, questionseverything. I hope Shuler sues them for all they think they're worth.

[questionseverything]

4. thank you for keeping us informed

seigleman had his election stolen by riley, jill simpson provided proof the bush/co had seigleman illegally targeted by justice department and yet nothing has changed

///////////////////////

Dana Jill Simpson
Life long Alabama Republican, ex-campaign worker for Bob Riley
and modern-day Joan of Arc - a rare true believer in truth, justice and the
"American way."

Jill Simpson — a Rainsville attorney, and lifelong Republican
who worked for Gov. Bob Riley’s first gubernatorial campaign,
then later for the Roy Moore Campaign — filed an affidavit in
Georgia, 2007, describing a conversation that took place during
a telephone conference call days after Riley defeated
Siegelman in the 2002 election. The content of the call
implicates the White House involvement in the Siegelman
prosecution. Participating in the call were Simpson; Rob Riley,
the governor’s son; Terry Butts, an attorney for Riley; and Bill
Canary, chairman of the Business Council of Alabama. She
claimed that she filed the affidavit “because I believe everyone
has a Sixth Amendment right to have an attorney who does not
have a conflict."

Her courageous act was made even more meaningful when it
was disclosed that while she was discussing her decision to
come forward with her disclosure, her house was burned to the
ground and her car run off the road and totaled

///////////////////////////////////////////


I keep hoping with enough sunlight that "we the people" can force the doj to do their jobs!!!

[Octafish]

6. Pretty sad state of affairs when 100 state attorney generals get zero air-time.

http://free-don.org/

PS: Thank you for putting the "whom" into the story, questionseverything. You are absolutely spot-on regarding the effect of sunlight on vermin. Those are the, uh, type of people who got to keep their jobs under Karl Rove and Eric Holder.

[struggle4progress]

3. Part of Shuler's problem is that he always appears in court pro se but doesn't know jackshizz

about the law. So naturally he loses his fights -- and he reacts by accusing everyone of conspiracy

In the present case, he was jailed for contempt of court in defying a court order, associated with a defamation suit against Shuler, requiring Shuler to remove certain webpages

He refused to remove the pages so he was jailed for contempt. He was released when he finally followed the court order and removed the pages

I'm personally inclined to believe Shuler when he accuses Alabama Republicans of corruption -- though I don't know it for a fact. The claim, that the court order was improper, also sounds plausible to me -- but again I don't know it for certain. What does seem absolutely indisputable to me is that Shuler is batshit crazy: one proof is his insistence of waging his fights pro se

Even if the court order were improper, Shuler's approach to contesting it wouldn't work under any circumstances. He needed a competent attorney to contest the order, because he doesn't know jackshizz about the law

Folk who claim to support Shuler ought to help him find a competent attorney and should help him pay that attorney -- because until Shuler abandons his pro se approach he will lose

[Octafish]

5. He's not ''batshit crazy.''

The conspiracy he chronicled put Gov. Don Siegelman behind bars.

As for integrity. The word can't be used to describe the Alabama GOP.

[struggle4progress]

7. If you support him, don't just talk: help him get counsel and help him pay for it

IMO a guy has to be a bit wacky to represent himself in court under any circumstances, more so if he doesn't know law, and even more so if beyond that he believes the local system is corrupt

There are plenty of people on the internet who say they support him

Maybe some of you should get together, find him competent legal counsel, and then help him pay for it

You might have to do some hard work to get him to accept counsel you find for him, though, because reports indicate he routinely rejects counsel offered and prefers to go the pro se route -- where he inevitably loses again and again. Why would he act that way? I say it's because he's batshit crazy

[Octafish]

8. Wacky! I knew Democracy could count on you.

What Roger Shuler's enemies wrote:

Is Roger Shuler a “Whack Job”?

Roger Shuler does not know when to quit. Whether it’s defaming innocent people or inventing wild conspiratorial conjecture about Republican politicians and the Alabama judicial system, he simply cannot help himself.

For a man who has been held in custody since October for contempt of court, you’d think that reason and logic might somehow soften his demeanor, but no. An out-of-touch attention seeker like Roger Shuler is far too self involved and delusional to see the naked truth. He’s even gone so far as to criticize the judge in his case, saying;

“To call it a kangaroo court is an insult to kangaroos,” Shuler said. “It’s worse than a joke.”

With statements like these, it doesn’t look like Roger Shuler will be released anytime soon.

Roger Shuler continues to represent himself in his legal defense, as he says that he has had far to many bad experiences with lawyers and he is extremely suspicious of the Alabama criminal justice system.

Funny enough, in a recent jailhouse interview, he stated when confronted with these issues, “I’m not some whack job.”

SOURCE: http://www.legalschnauzerexposed.com/

With entries titled, "Carol Shuler and Roger Shuler’s Frivolous Lawsuits" and "Warning – Do not hire Carol Shuler or Roger Shuler of Birmingham Alabama," the web site really reads more like a personal attack than a news article, filled with facts for the reader to consider.

Glad you want to straighten the record, struggle4progress!

[struggle4progress]

13. ... Mr. Shuler remains in jail, unwilling to take down his posts but also unwilling to hire a lawyer

and contest his incarceration in the state courts ...
Blogger’s Incarceration Raises First Amendment Questions
By CAMPBELL ROBERTSONJAN. 11, 2014

... Schuler, who represented himself in court, refused to acknowledge the judge's jurisdiction ...
Alabama Blogger May Be The Only Person Jailed For Journalism In The Western Hemisphere
Pamela Engel
Jan. 13, 2014, 2:02 PM

... Roger Shuler appeals pro se from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the University of Alabama at Birmingham ...
SHULER v UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
July 3, 2012

... Roger Shuler and Carol Shuler, proceeding pro se, appeal the district court’s dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 civil rights action ...
SHULER & SHULER v SWATEK et al
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
April 10, 2012

... Roger and Carol Shuler (“the Shulers”), proceeding pro se, appeal the district court’s order granting the summary judgment motions of defendants Ingram & Associates (“Ingram”) and NCO Financial Systems ...
SHULER v INGRAM
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
September 29, 2011

[Octafish]

14. Thanks! He took down the posts.

That is the issue, the Alabama GOP got their unconstitutional way. The same crowd includes the war profiteer federal judge Mark Fuller.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022073759

[struggle4progress]

16. All links in my #13 refer to Shuler's wackadoodle pro se habit

[Octafish]

17. Got it! I figured that, as they didn't mention his release.

Great collection. Great word, too! "Wackadoodle." I wouldn't use it to describe Roger Shuler, though.

For me, when I think of him, words like "Journalist," "Patriot," "Truth," and "Integrity" spring to mind.

[struggle4progress]

20. SHULER et al v SWATEK et al demonstrates just how loony the world of Roger Shuler is:

He got into repeated arguments with his next-door neighbor and finally sued over a minor property line dispute, winning $1 in damages. His neighbor countersued, claiming that Shuler had appropriated some of his belongings, and won compensation and probably lawyers' fees, in total $1525, which Shuler refused to pay. Several years later, Shuler started his blog to discuss these disputes, so the neighbor retaliated by insisting on payment of the $1525 he had won in court. Shuler took the view that all this was illegitimate and therefore required no action from him, so his home was sold for $1525. Later, Shuler went to court pro se attempting to overturn the sale and lost repeatedly. It's just nuts

The following is from the opinion in his Federal suit:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
29 December 2010
SHULER et al v SWATEK et al

... In 1998, McGarity purchased the property adjacent to Plaintiffs’home .. Since then, Roger Shuler and McGarity have embroiled themselves in several disputes, ranging from litigation to actual physical altercations. After several verbal spats regarding their shared property boundary, Roger Shuler initiated a criminal trespass suit against McGarity in the spring of 2000 wherein McGarity was acquitted. Shortly thereafter, McGarity filed suit against Roger Shuler, alleging malicious prosecution and conversion, seeking damages of $25,000 .. In the 2004 trial, the jury returned a verdict against McGarity on Shuler’s trespass counterclaim, awarding Shuler $1 in damages .. The jury also found that Shuler had converted McGarity’s property and awarded McGarity $1,525 in compensatory and punitive damages. In October 2006 .. Shuler and McGarity engaged in a physical altercation .. Plaintiffs reported the incident to the .. Sheriff’s Office, but chose not to file criminal charges ... In the summer of 2007 .. Shuler started a blog .. to discuss his troubles with McGarity ... This decision allegedly prompted McGarity to try to collect on the jury award he secured on the 2004 conversion claim ... Swatek applied for a writ of execution .. to seize Plaintiffs’ cars or home for a sheriff’s sale to pay the outstanding judgment. Plaintiffs received notice of levy .. informing Plaintiffs of the impending sale of their home and property ... Plaintiffs received over twenty-five (25) phone messages .. informing them of the upcoming sale and inquiring whether they had arranged a settlement ... Plaintiffs explained that they were not attempting to work out a settlement because they believed the original 2004 judgment against them was void and, in any event, they had claimed an exemption for their property ... Sheriff Curry’s office sought guidance from Judge Harrington ... Judge Harrington apparently disagreed with Plaintiffs’ position and ordered the sale to proceed ... Plaintiffs received notice of Judge Harrington’s order .. and admit that “the court file shows that Harrington indeed signed off on the sale” ... Plaintiffs contend .. Harrington “acted outside his official capacity” ... As a result, Plaintiffs did not appeal Judge Harrington’s order or take any other action to stop the sale ... The sheriff’s sale proceeded, as ordered ... Defendants have moved to dismiss ... For the reasons stated more fully below, the court DISMISSES this case ...

[Octafish]

23. No offense, but I'll side with Shuler and Siegelman over Alabama just us.

This 60 Minutes segment describes how Siegelman got railroaded by the authorities:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-ex-alabama-governor-get-a-raw-deal/

GOP attorney Jill Simpson did "oppo research" for Karl Rove and Co.

[struggle4progress]

24. Carelessly jumbling stuff together produces useless fugged-up thought

I think Siegelman was railroaded

We know some details because Jill Simpson blew the whistle

Back in the Bush era, I did look at legalschnauzer now and then regarding the case -- but the main use, that I could make of the blog, was as an aid for tracking down credible reports about the case: Shuler himself wasn't really doing any original journalistic work on the subject, and his summaries of what was known were often rather garbled

To win our fights, we need accurate facts and careful analysis based on those facts. A certain healthy paranoia can guide our research into details, by suggesting where to look and what to seek, but it cannot substitute for the actual facts

Shuler's attitudes towards the courts resemble the notions of so-called "sovereign citizens" -- he doesn't think the courts are legitimate and so feels unobligated to take their orders and judgments seriously. When he loses a case and is found to owe his neighbor $1500, he just ignores it, and when his neighbor gets the judgment enforced, Shuler ignores that too, so his house is sold from under him, to collect the judgement: it's nuts. When he's sued for defamation after claiming someone had an extramarital affair, he doesn't bother to appear to defend himself, and when he's served with a court order to take down those posts, he throws the papers out his car window and ignores the order, so he pointlessly spends five months in jail for contempt: again, it's nuts . He may have had some arguments in those matters, but he loses by default, since he simply refuses to recognize ordinary legal process

If you treat attitudes towards Shuler as a surrogate for attitudes towards Siegelman, you simply hitch your wagon to a very strange duck without gaining anything in result

[Jim Lane]

9. Shuler can be completely right about the Alabama GOP and still be batshit crazy about other things.

I agree with struggle4progress that Shuler is making a huge mistake to try to represent himself. Unlike Shuler, I have a law degree and years of experience in practice, and if I were in his situation, I'd get a lawyer to help me.

Also, the general rule is that you must obey a court order while it's in effect, even if you think it's wrong (even if you think it's unconstitutional) and even if you've taken an appeal. You can ask for a stay pending appeal, which you might or might not get. If you don't ask for a stay (and I see no indication that Shuler even sought one), or if your request for a stay is denied, then you shouldn't be surprised if you're held in contempt for violating the order.

[Dr. Strange]

10. I'm not a lawyer.

But I do like reading legal stuff. (Well, some legal stuff.)

The Shulers refused to answer the door when officials came to serve court papers, stating their suspicions in blog posts that the visits were part of an “intimidation and harassment campaign” stemming from the reporting on another topic.

...

The officer then served them the papers, which the Shulers refused to accept, contending that service under such a pretext was improper.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/12/us/bloggers-incarceration-raises-first-amendment-questions.html

Does Shuler really have a right to avoid being served court papers? I've heard of people trying to avoid being served (Carreon's saga comes to mind), but Shuler seems to think he has a right not to be served. Is there any kind of legal theory that supports him on this?

[Jim Lane]

11. There are some circumstances under which service is invalid if procured by fraud.

This is stuff I read long ago, and I may well have the details wrong, but I think what happened was that P brought suit against D and wanted to serve D with process in the state where the case was pending, so that the court would have jurisdiction. D lived in a different state. P caused a false communication to be sent to D, telling D that D had qualified for some sort of award to be given at a banquet in the state. D fell for it, showed up at the site of the supposed banquet, and was served with process. IIRC the service was held invalid.

From the Times article you linked, I see two bases for service on Shuler. First, someone came to his house (his correct address) at a time when he was there, but he wouldn't take the papers. Second,

a member of the Sheriff’s Department pulled them over, saying they had run a stop sign. The officer then served them the papers, which the Shulers refused to accept, contending that service under such a pretext was improper.

That second one is unclear to me. If Shuler and his wife didn't actually run a stop sign, there was an element of pretext, but his presence within Alabama (and hence his being subject to service there) didn't arise from fraud. Also, aside from the stop sign issue, I don't know whether Alabama law allows a deputy to pull someone over solely to serve legal papers, especially when that person has been evading judicial process.

The first case, though, seems pretty clear. A party to a lawsuit can't thwart the court's jurisdiction just through obstinacy. I don't know Alabama law, but here's how it would be handled in New York (under Civil Practice Law and Rules 308): The process server goes to the correct address and attempts to serve Shuler personally. If Shuler won't come to the door, the process server can leave the papers with his wife, or with some other person "of suitable age and discretion". If no such person comes to the door, the process server tries again some other time. If reasonable efforts fail (try more than once, and not always at the same time of day, for example try at least once in the early evening in case the person works during the day), then the process server can affix the papers to the door of the house. If the papers aren't personally handed to Shuler, but given to some other person or affixed to the door, then a copy must also be sent to Shuler by first-class mail. (These alternative methods of service, for someone who won't come to the door or who actually isn't home, are known colloquially as "leave and mail" and "nail and mail", respectively.)

If you like reading legal stuff and you want all the details that I've glossed over, the state court in Manhattan offers a handy guide on "How to Serve Legal Papers"; search for 308 to get to the relevant part.

Alabama law probably differs in some particulars but it's inconceivable to me that there would not be some procedure to accomplish the same goal. Roger Shuler is not the first Alabamian to wish that a lawsuit against him would just go away. I'm sure the courts there can't be stymied just because a litigant petulantly refuses to come to the door.

Now, IF Alabama law is like New York's and IF the people trying to serve Shuler were so ticked off that they got impatient and didn't adhere to all the procedural requirements (such as a follow-up mailing), thus invalidating the first service, and IF the Shulers didn't actually run a stop sign and IF the deputy's pulling them over on a false pretext constitutes a fraud that voids the second service, THEN he might have some sort of case about the service of the order. Of course, all that gets him is that they'll re-serve him properly.

Final thought: The article you linked makes me think that struggle4progress and I were both looking at this a little too simplistically. It's not just a matter of persuading Shuler to hire a lawyer. There's also the problem of persuading a lawyer to take the case. Based on what's in that article, I would see a strong likelihood that, not all that far down the road, Shuler would be suing any lawyer he hired. As his retained-then-fired-then-sued lawyer, I would expect to win the case he brought against me, but who needs that aggravation.

[struggle4progress]

22. ... “I’m not some whack job who doesn’t want help. I want legal help, but it has to be

the right kind of help. I’ve had some bad experiences with lawyers, and those experiences tell me that lawyers tend to take your money and represent the other side” ...
In Jailhouse Interview, Alabama Blogger Says He Won’t Budge
By David J. Krajicek on Nov 25, 2013

At other times, he says he cannot afford a lawyer. When he was charged with resisting arrest IIRC he stated that he could not afford a lawyer, then declined court-appointed counsel

David Gespass of the National Lawyers Guild visited Shuler, while he was jailed for contempt, and expressed concerns about the case -- but no legal representation seems to have followed

[Octafish]

18. Agree with you and msanthrope, another attorney on DU who said the same.

From Dec. 28, 2013:

Here is what I think Shuler should do....hire an actual attorney. If the ACLU will represent

him, then he should do what they say.

And if I was his attorney, I'd start filing motions-- a hearing on the contempt, motions for recusal, motions for reconsideration, etc.

He needs legal counsel. And he needs to listen to that legal counsel.

BTW: From what Shuler wrote, he got tossed into jail before being served with any court order to take down anything negative about the friends of Karl Rove from his blog. Once in jail, he was denied access to a computer and Internet access, preventing him from fulfilling the court order to remove the "offensive" materials.

Do you think that's legal, Jim Lane, ordering a journalist to stand down?

[struggle4progress]

21. He was stopped by officers, served with the injunction, and threw the papers out his car window,

later claiming that the service was invalid and that he therefore need not recognize it

... “We were both throwing the papers out of the windows as we were driving off,” Ms. Shuler said in an interview ...
Blogger’s Incarceration Raises First Amendment Questions
By CAMPBELL ROBERTSON
JAN. 11, 2014

[msanthrope]

27. Holy crap!! Did we just agree on something? nt

[Jim Lane]

28. In general, yes, there are circumstances in which a court can make such an order.

You can phrase it as "ordering a journalist to stand down" -- but journalists (whether self-appointed or employed by the MSM) are not above the law and must in general follow the same rules as the rest of us. (Some states have shield laws allowing journalists to protect sources in ways that aren't available to non-journalists, but that isn't applicable here. The allegation against Shuler is defamation, and there is no journalistic privilege to defame.)

You can put scare quotes around the word "offensive" but the fact is that our First Amendment jurisprudence recognizes many cases in which people can be punished for saying or publishing things, such as defamation, trade libel, copyright infringement, pornography, invasion of privacy, breach of a nondisclosure agreement, and probably a few more that don't pop into my mind at the moment. In some of those cases, yes, a court can order someone to "stand down" in the sense of removing the challenged material from a website. Copyright infringement is probably the most obvious case. Defamation is less clear to me without doing some research.

If someone posts defamatory material on a website, and the person who complains about it wins the lawsuit, it's obvious that the court can order the defendant (journalist or not) to pay money damages. Can the court, as part of a final judgment, also direct that the defamatory material be removed from the website? I don't know but my semi-wild-assed guess is Yes. Can the court, before there's been a full trial on the merits, issue a preliminary injunction with such a requirement, to remain in effect pending the final judgment? Again I don't know. I do know that prior restraint on speech is disfavored, and most judges would be very reluctant to issue such a preliminary injunction. Nevertheless, if the court has the power to order such an action in the final judgment, then it probably has the power to issue a preliminary injunction, and might well be justified in doing so in an extreme case.

Suppose a liberal college professor named Ebenezer Smith is making his first run for elective office, challenging the incumbent Tea Party Congressmember. A RW blogger creates a website accusing Smith of all manner of things, with, for example, images (wholly falsified) of what look like criminal convictions for child molestation and a completely fallacious story that the university reprimanded Smith for misuse of college funds. Smith's defamation action against the blogger won't come to trial until after the election. Is it legal for the court to order the RW blogger to stand down, i.e., to remove these lies about Smith? Somehow the injunction doesn't seem quite so outlandish under those circumstances, does it?

As for whether Shuler was in fact "tossed into jail before being served with any court order to take down anything", there's reason to doubt his contentions to that effect, as noted by struggle4progress in #21 in this thread.

[wildbilln864]

12. k & r and thanks once again Octafish!

u rock the party!

and I hope Mr. Shuler sues their asses and wins huge!

[Octafish]

15. Justice demands it. Shuler stood with Don Siegelman...

Siegelman made the mistake of being an honest Democrat in an age of warmongers. The scum of the earth "money trumps peace" crowd.

The Pork Barrel World of Judge Mark Fuller

by Scott Horton
Harpers

EXCERPT...

The recusal motion rested upon details about Fuller’s personal business interests. On February 22, 2007, defense attorneys obtained information that Judge Fuller held a controlling 43.75% interest in government contractor Doss Aviation, Inc. After investigating these claims for over a month, the attorneys filed a motion for Fuller’s recusal on April 18, 2007. The motion stated that Fuller’s total stake in Doss Aviation was worth between $1-5 million, and that Fuller’s income from his stock for 2004 was between $100,001 and $1 million dollars.

In other words, Judge Fuller likely made more from his business income, derived from U.S. Government contracts, than as a judge. Fuller is shown on one filing as President of the principal business, Doss Aviation, and his address is shown as One Church Street, Montgomery, Alabama, the address of the Frank M. Johnson Federal Courthouse, in which his chambers are located.

CONTINUED...

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/08/hbc-90000762

Doss Aviation is huge. And it's still just the tip of the dirty BFEE iceberg.

[KoKo]

19. Recommend!

[idendoit]

25. I just hope this guy goes right back to afflicting the people that put him in.

[WillyT]

26. K & R !!!

[pragmatic_dem]

29. He is a political prisoner. Alabama? More like Talibana.